Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation After Nonmitral Cardiac Surgery: MitraClip Versus Surgical Reconstruction

Background: Surgical mitral valve repair is the conventional treatment for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR). MitraClip therapy has emerged as a viable option in high-risk surgical patients. We sought to compare conventional surgery to MitraClip therapy in patients with severe degenerative mitral valve prolapse (MVP) and previous cardiac interventions. Methods: From January 2012 to May 2016, 131 patients with previous cardiac surgery and subsequent intervention for degenerative MVP were included in this analysis: 75 (57.3%) underwent surgical repair and 56 (42.7%) underwent MitraClip placement. Follow-up was available in all early survivors at median of 11 (interquartile range, 0 to 32) months for surgery and 11 (interquartile range, 3 to 21) months for MitraClip patients. Results: MitraClip patients were older (75.7 ± 8.6 years of age versus 68.6 ± 13.1 of age; p < 0.001), and had higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores (5.8 ± 2.4 versus 2.7 ± 2.3; p < 0.001). Median length-of-stay was 7 (interquartile range, 5 to 11) days for surgery and 2 (interquartile range, 2 to 4) days for MitraClip patients (p < 0.001), but 30-day mortality was comparable between the 2 groups (2.7% versus 3.6%; p = 0.77). Recurrent MR (moderate or severe) was significantly higher for MitraClip patients, both at discharge (43.1% versus 5.4%; p < 0.001) and at 1-year follow-up (66.7% versus 33.3%; p = 0.02). At 1 year postintervention, freedom from mitral reintervention was significantly higher for surgical patients (100.0% versus 87.5%; p = 0.006). Conclusions: In patients with previous cardiac interventions and severe degenerative MVP, a repeat conventional surgery is safe and durable. Percutaneous MitraClip repair is effective but associated with higher risk of residual MR, and should only be considered in selected patients. Careful patient selection using a heart team approach is recommended.